Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Jesus of Nazareth
I found this on the Amorality of Atheism Facebook website page. I don’t endorse the idea that all atheists are amoral though.
Read an article in the Belfast Telegraph recently which said that “Today religion remains a popular historical hobby but not, thankfully, something we take seriously any more”. But whilst the narrow circle of people the author knows might not take religion seriously, there is one person they cannot afford not to take seriously.
He lived millennia ago, travelling by foot, with no car or horse, never leaving a rural area only slightly larger than Northern Ireland. He was a tradesman most of his life, and taught for only three years, spending most of his time with small crowds, and dying in his early thirties. He left behind no children, no army, or political lobby group, to trumpet his cause.
Yet today He is the central figure of the world’s best-selling book, and the subject of millions more. His name is known all over the globe, and spoken in hundreds of different languages. His followers are the most persecuted people on Earth, yet increase by 25 million every year, and his message has outlasted kingdoms, empires, dictators, revolutions, ideologies and religions.
He is arguably the most influential, lauded, loathed, misunderstood, controversial and quoted man to ever walk the face of the Earth. You can write him off as a liar, cast him aside as a lunatic, or look on Him as Lord, but one thing you cannot do is ignore Him. — Andrew Kirke
I’d also add that contrary to what some rags or magazines or online sites put out today of all days, or in prior Easters (Raw Story, CNN, Huffington Post) that no serious historian has ever seriously believed that Jesus did not exist. Only historical illiterates do. Christ was mentioned in Jewish, Greek, and Roman writings. For historians of the 1st century that is more than enough to prove he lived. Keep in mind that what we know of Alexander the Great or Aristotle depends on one source or sources written hundreds of years after their life as in the case of the former.
My faith in Jesus often wavers. I have a doubters’ mind. Nevertheless when I see atheists or non believers rubbish the man’s existence it is as if my faith is renewed again. For in doing so I am confronted not with reasoned belief but blind ignorance. An ignorance at its heart rooted in the desire of the accusers a wish for him not to exist. After all if Christ did exist the onus becomes on the modern unbeliever to take more seriously his words. This can be problem for them, indeed for any soul.
But their refusal also forces me to re-look the evidence for Christ. It also causes me to learn more things about the man. In a weird way it strengthens my faith. Christianity is after all a faith which is soaked in contradictions. It’s also one grounded in the search for Truth. Ecce homo — Behold the man. A man whose life changed humanity.
Published in History, Religion & Philosophy
Oh, I married Super Man! For sure! He looks just like Henry Cavill, too… When I close my eyes. :)
Oh, I do acknowledge that. God, however, does have specific characteristics which remain true of God regardless of anyone’s willing or unwillingness to acknowledge them, just as there are essential characteristics of your, my, Lois, Matt’s or Jamie’s identity and character that remain true whether they are acknowledge (or even observed) by anyone else.
Let’s step back. Do you understand that the following two propositions mean different things:
Because right after saying you acknowledge that I might do no. 1, you jumped into suggesting that what I am really doing is no. 2. You’ve done that at least half a dozen times on this thread. From what you right, it’s honestly not clear that you see the difference, although it’s a pretty substantial one. Either that or you’re just trolling and I should drop it and go talk to somebody else. (Go ahead Ricochet PTB – zap me again. I don’t know how else to say it, so I asked, I didn’t accuse.) Hartman, if there’s a third option for why you jump from 1 to 2 in the passage I highlighted, I’d listen to it. Otherwise, I’m out. This thread has gone on past the point of usefulness.
Cato,
@hartmanvonaue appears to be saying that you have looked at the evidence, used reason, and reached the wrong conclusion. Every post is saying some variation of “you are wrong, and nothing you say diminishes the God in which I believe”. I also think this last post, despite calling your conclusions “wrong” also confirms his belief in the special nature God gave each person, whether you, or anyone else acknowledges it.
I cannot see it as “trolling” to tell someone “I think you have reached the wrong conclusions, and I still value you as a special human being, anyway, because that is the command of my God”. I also do not find it “sophomoric” (which is a way of calling someone childish) to continue to say “I do not agree with your reasoning”, or “your reasoning is wrong”. It appears that you hold faith with some disdain. If you do not, it is how I have seen you come across in this discussion. Certainly, using a word like “sophomoric” is not treating the other person with respect.
It isn’t the zap from the Editors that you should worry about.
Good for a chuckle.
I think you are being exceedingly generous in rewriting Mr. von Aue’s comments.
And . . . here we go again.
Well, I guess we are looking at the same facts and reaching different conclusions based on our own filters.
For a non-believer, you seem offended by this. First, it looks like a joke to me, but maybe MJ really thinks you are in danger of being struck from above. Personally, I think the theology on that is mucked up, so it would be worth responding to it with ridicule, if it is meant at face value.
On a deeper note, however, my guess is MJ believes your soul is destined for damnation. As such, to him, worry about getting smacked by the editors means nothing. He would much rather you believe as he does, to save your soul (at least based on my understanding of MJ’s beliefs).
I just found it funny.
I don’t think theists realize how arrogant and condescending this is to agnostics or atheists.
Basically mind your own soul and we’ll mind ours.
I fail to see how someone who does not believe in a soul should rationally be offended that someone else is worried about something that does not exist. Then again, atheists often react to theists in a similar fashion to theists of another faith reacting to a theist, so that might be it.
I have never been offended by someone offering to pray for me, or expressing worry about my salvation. I have seen atheists be offended when told “I will pray for you”. That is not rational. Another person’s prayers or concern does not effect you at all. However, you choose to see it as arrogant and condescending. Why do you care what MJ or anyone else thinks about an afterlife you do not believe in? Why do you care if MJ thinks you are going to hell? How does that harm you at all? It does not. Therefore, there is no reason to be offended.
Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
I don’t think theists realize how arrogant and condescending this is to agnostics or atheists.
—
This is what is interesting to me in this conversation.
I can see both sides of how people are “reading” each other, and I’m not sure how we actually have meaningful exchanges.
I agree with a lot of what Bryan said about how certain comments have been taken.
The truth of the matter is that I think Jamie and Cato’s reasoning is wrong, and I’ve said a lot of the same things that Hartmann has said, but I have not offended anyone.
The thing is, I don’t believe I’m more articulate than anyone else, so I wonder where the disconnect is amongst speakers.
This is a broader topic really: how we engage in civil exchanges when we disagree strongly about correct answers.
It can apply to religion but politics as well.
I suppose it comes down to purpose? I have engaged in this thread to test my own thinking about certain ideas, and–as I’ve said before–I’ve had to dig a little deeper into ideas that resonate with other people. I’ve had to ask myself, “Well… is that persuasive?” This is useful for me.
But what is everyone else’s purpose?
The truth is that both unbelievers and believers often feel patronized and condescended to and downright ridiculed.
I think this is the source for a lot of friction here… a sense that one’s purpose is to defend one’s beliefs rather than to simply exchange explanations for alternate understandings?
Matthew 28:18-20English Standard Version (ESV)
18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
Christians are not commanded to leave it be, they are commanded to do the opposite. They are not charged to force people to believe, but to offer their belief. Anyone in this thread who did not want to engage was free to walk away. As long as you stay engaged, Jesus would have us stay engaged too.
We are a rich nation, and thus it is hard for all of us to follow, as we are all the rich man.
Good for you, however, if you’ve been asked to stop as Cato has done repeatedly decorum and good manners dictate that you should.
Good insight. Defense implies I am under threat. If I am afraid, I can easy turn to Anger.
It’s often heard as “By the standard that I believe matters the most, you are failing at life.” It can come across as judgmental and be quite hurtful, especially if the listener esteems the person saying it.
Now, a Christian might say that it is not meant to hurt but — rather — to be offered in the sincerest love and concern. The atheist/agnostic should acknowledge that intent, but the Christian should acknowledge the likely hurt.
Relatedly, there’s often a frustrating asymmetry. To me, a Christian who shares my values is living a good life and is (possibly) incorrect regarding some metaphysical and theological matters that I ultimately don’t think matter that much. To many Christians, my (otherwise) a good life does not prevent me from an eternity of damnation due to my lack of faith.
To me, it depends entirely on the particulars. In general, asking/suggesting prayer for me is deeply flattering and welcome: if nothing else, it’s a deeply show of concern. And hey, you might be right about all this, so…
But in the particularly context of a debate on the existence of God… well, it can rub the wrong way (BTW, I think this is what @jamielockett was saying; if so, I agree with him in this very limited sense). Regardless of intent, it can come across as disrespectful. Sort of “Well, I’ve indulged in this adolescent debate long enough, so I’m going to kiss-off in a way that announces how very, very right I am.”
This is a curious bit of carping. Paddy put up an Easter post about how dealing with Atheist stuff strengthens his faith in Jesus our Savior. Then the Atheists show up to tell the Christians how wrong, arrogant, condescending, boorish etc., &tc. the Christians are for having faith in G-d. And, upon getting the least little bit of push-back from the Christians, the Atheists start telling us to shut up.
Okay, a few thoughts on this:
First, point taken. It’s an Easter post that turned into a theological debate. I don’t think that’s necessarily a problem or surprising, but — again — point taken. I’ve thought a few times that it would have been better to have started a second thread, and I’m sorry for my part in that.
Second…
… and that said, I strenuously disagree with your summary of the thread’s progression. Take a look at the initial comments from @catorand, @jamielockett, and me (here and here), all on the first page:
That’s hardly atheists “showing up to tell the Christians how wrong, arrogant, condescending, boorish etc.” though I could have done without Cato’s “elide.”
Doubtless, we could each make lists of comments we each took umbrage with, but I don’t think that’d be terribly useful.
That is a rather unfair rendering of how the threads evolved.
We know you see it that way, but you’re wrong.
It is a religious thread. You should expect a significant portion of the comments to come from a religious perspective.
Questioning the existence of Jesus in a religious thread was not “something” you could do without. It was a slap at the believers. To act as if the atheists did not start it is silly. They did. Period. Cato’s post is exhibit A.
This definitely helps.
The entire thread is about theists standing up to atheists and proving them factually wrong. It’s not a slap in the face to point out, politely, that there is a difference of opinion there.
[Editors’ Hat Off]
First, @paddysiochain brought-up the question of Jesus’s historicity in his original post. Indeed, Jesus’s historical existence is, arguably, the central focus of his post.
Second, Cato, Jamie, and I all said — in our first comments, no less — that the evidence for there being a historical Jesus is strong. We disagreed with Paddy’s argument that it follows that, if Jesus existed, then he must have been the Christ. These arguments were wholly germane to the OP.
Bryan, seriously, spell it out for me. The only thing I see in Cato’s initial comment that strikes me as potentially disrespectful is the word “elide.” Am I missing something?